A Late-Medieval Crisis of Superstition?

Iowa State University
Digital Repository @ Iowa State University

History Publications
History
2009
A Late-Medieval Crisis of Superstition?

Michael D. Bailey
Iowa State University, mdbailey@iastate.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/history_pubs

Part of the History of Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and
Philosophy of Religion Commons
The complete bibliographic information for this item can be found at http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/
history_pubs/4. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/
howtocite.html.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History at Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. It has been accepted for inclusion
in History Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. For more information, please contact
digirep@iastate.edu.
A Late-Medieval Crisis of Superstition?

By Michael D. Bailey
I he medieval church had always been concerned about superstition. In the late
fourteenth and early fifteenth centuriesthe waning years, as some would have
it, of the European Middle Agescertain theologians and other clerical authorities became obsessed with it. Authors from Iberia to the Low Countries and from
Paris to Vienna turned their attention to this topic, and particularly in the first
half of the 1400s a wave of tracts and treatises explicitly de superstitionibus issued
from their pens.1 For these men, superstition was a serious error, not the typically
harmless foolishness that modern use of the term tends to convey.2 In the theology
of the age, superstitio meant most basically an excess of religion, literally "religion
observed beyond proper measure." 3 Since human beings could not possibly offer
a superabundance of proper worship beyond what God, in his perfection, deserved, this excess necessarily implied improper religious rites and observances.
Superstition meant either performing elements of the divine cult incorrectly or,
worse still, offering worship to entities other than the Deity.4
Such sweeping definitions could encompass a multitude of practices, and had
done so in the long course of Christian history.5 For the authors of the early
This article was largely written during a semester at the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. For
providing an unparalleled working environment and access to unmatched resources, I thank the MGH
and the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. For financial support, I am grateful to the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung. An early version of the article was presented at the University of Mannheim, and my
thanks go to PD Dr. Sabine von Heusinger for the opportunity to speak there. A later version was
presented at the Newberry Library Medieval Intellectual History Colloquium, and I thank the organizers and participants for many useful suggestions. Finally, I thank the anonymous readers for Speculum, whose comments greatly improved the clarity and style of this article.
1
Many are touched on in Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 vols.
(New York, 1923-58), 4:274-307; see also Francoise Bonney, "Autour de Jean Gerson: Opinions de
theologiens sur les superstitions et la sorcellerie au debut du XVe siecle," he moyen age 77 (1971),
85-98; and Jan R. Veenstra, Magic and Divination at the Courts of Burgundy and France: Text and
Context of Laurens Pignon's "Contre les devineurs" (1411), Brill's Studies in Intellectual History 83
(Leiden, 1998), pp. 137-53.
2
On medieval versus modern conceptions of the term see Dieter Harmening, Superstitio: Uberlieferungs- und theoriegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur kirchlich-theologischen Aberglaubensliteratur
des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1979), p. 5.
3
The most widely accepted definition was from Thomas Aquinas, Sutntna theologiae 2.2.92.1: "dicitur enim superstitio esse religio supra modum servata," drawing on the Glossa ordinaria to Colossians 2.23. See Aquinas, Sutntna theologica, 6 vols. (Rome, 1894), 3:659; and Biblia Latina cum glossa
ordinaria: Facsimile Reprint of the Editio Princeps, Adolph Rusch of Strassburg 1480/81, 4 vols.
(Turnhout, 1992), 4:393.
4
" . . . sed quia exhibit cultum divinum, vel cui non debet, vel eo modo quo non debet": Aquinas,
Summa theologiae 2.2.92.1, 3:660. See also Thomas Linsenmann, Die Magie bei Thomas von Aquin,
Veroffentlichung des Grabmann-Institutes 44 (Berlin, 2000), pp. 278-79, for a summary of Aquinas's
thought.
5
An overview can be found in Michael D. Bailey, Magic and Superstition in Europe: A Concise
History from Antiquity to the Present (Lanham, Md., 2007).
Speculum 84 (2009)
633
634
A Late-Medieval Crisis?
fifteenth century, concern over superstition tended to focus on common spells,

charms, methods of divination (including both relatively simple means of fortunetelling and learned, systematic astrology), and other more or less magical practices.
In the post-Enlightenment world of the modern West, and certainly in most elite,
educated discourse, all aspects of magic are typically dismissed as ineffectual and
irrational, completely disconnected from the scientific principles by which the universe is understood to operate.6 For medieval authorities, of course, the situation
was profoundly different. While they might judge some spells or charms to be
"vain" or ineffectual, they considered most such practices to be fully in accord
with understood systems of causation and capable of producing very real results,
albeit by corrupted means. Their concerns, therefore, were very real indeed. Chief
among them were fears that demonic power lurked behind erroneous practices
and that such rites might mask the adoration or veneration of wicked spirits.7
Concern over superstition was rising already in the later fourteenth century,
culminating in 1398, when the theological faculty of the university at Paris issued
a decree condemning twenty-eight articles of magical arts and sorcery.8 Yet the
Paris decree dealt mainly with elite magical rites, whereas later works on superstition would typically include common practices as well. Concern seems to have
radiated out from Paris, as Jean Gerson, the influential chancellor of the university,
produced a half-dozen brief works criticizing various forms of superstition and
magic.9 To the first of these, De erroribus circa artem magicam (1402), he appended the list of the 1398 condemnations, which he had helped orchestrate.10
He was followed by the Heidelberg theologian Nikolaus Magni of Jauer, who
wrote a major treatise on superstition in 1405, himself inspired by a case brought
6
Martin Pott, Aufkldrung und Aberglaube: Die deutsche Fruhaufkla'rung im Spiegel ihrer Aberglaubenskritik, Studien zur deutschen Literatur 119 (Tubingen, 1992); Roy Porter, "Witchcraft and
Magic in Enlightenment, Romantic and Liberal Thought," in Witchcraft and Magic in Europe: Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, ed. Bengt Ankarloo and Stuart Clark (Philadelphia, 1999), pp. 191274. Stuart A. Vyse, Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition (Oxford, 1997), categorizes
superstitions as either "benignly" irrational or more damaging in that they "waste time, effort, and
money and prolong ineffective responses to uncertainty" (p. 23). Judith Devlin, The Superstitious
Mind: French Peasants and the Supernatural in the Nineteenth Century (New Haven, Conn., 1987),
is less dismissive than Vyse, but her framework, too, is indicative of the modern mentality, ultimately
analyzing superstitious beliefs and practices as (sometimes useful) "psychological techniques" (p. 215).
7
Thanks to the Thomistic notion of tacit as well as express pacts (Aquinas, Summa theologiae
2.2.92.2, 3:661; see also n. 70 below), any action conceived as drawing on demonic power could be
associated with worship. On growing concern over demonic power and association of magic with
diabolism in the fourteenth century see Alain Boureau, Satan the Heretic: The Birth of Demonology
in the Medieval West, trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan (Chicago, 2006). Specifically in relation to superstition see Michael D. Bailey, "Concern over Superstition in Late Medieval Europe," in The Religion
of Fools? Superstition Past and Present, ed. S. A. Smith and Alan Knight, Past and Present Supplement
3 (Oxford, 2008), pp. 115-33.
8
Heinrich Denifle, ed., Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, 4 vols. (Paris, 1891-99; repr. Brussels, 1964), 4:32-36. See also n. 10 below. For analysis see Jean-Patrice Boudet, "Les condemnations
de la magie a Paris en 1398," Revue Mabillon 12 (2001), 121-57.
'Collected in Gerson, (Euvres completes, ed. P. Glorieux, 10 vols. (Paris, 1960-73), 10:77-143.
Brief attention is given in Brian Patrick McGuire, Jean Gerson and the Last Medieval Reformation
(University Park, Pa., 2005), pp. 91 and 308-9.
10
Gerson, (Euvres completes, 10:77-90, condemnations appended at pp. 86-90.
635
before the Heidelberg theological faculty.11 That same year, another Heidelberg
theologian, Johannes of Frankfurt, produced a quaestio about whether demons
could be compelled or controlled by certain words, figures, or written characters.12
This addressed a central issue in authorities' debates over superstition, for if demons could be commanded by various rites, rather than supplicated and venerated, then the exploitation of their power might not entail superstitious error.
Over the next few decades, a steady stream of works appeared, mainly in central
Europe. Around 1415 an anonymous author, perhaps a theologian from Cologne,
wrote against superstitious divination.13 A decade after that, the Cologne theologian Heinrich of Gorcum (modern Gorichem, in the Netherlands) produced a
short tract on superstition.14 Also around this time, probably in 1423, the Vienna
theologian Nikolaus of Dinkelsbuhl dealt with superstition in a series of sermons
on the Ten Commandments: since, authorities believed, superstitious practices so
frequently entailed diabolism, they clearly fell under the first commandment's ban
against idolatry.15 Over a decade later, in 1438, another Vienna theologian, Jo11
On this case see below, p. 643. The work has never been edited. I have used Nikolaus Magni of
Jauer, Tractatus de superstitionibus, University of Pennsylvania, MS 78, fols. 35r-63 v, checked against
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3041, fols. 188r-219r, and Clm 4721, fols. 202r-220r, as
well as Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. Lat. 679, fols. 164r-205r, and Pal. Lat. 719,
fols. 64r-77v. On Nikolaus see Adolph Franz, Der Magister Nikolaus Magni de Jawor: Ein Beitrag
zur Literatur- und Gelehrtengeschichte des 14. und IS. Jahrhunderts (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1898),
and, more recently, Krzysztof Bracha, Teolog, diabel i zabobony: Swiadectwo tracktatu Mikolaja
Magni z Jawora "De superstitionibus" (1405 r.) (Warsaw, 1999); a German translation of Bracha's
book is under way.
12
Johannes of Frankfurt, Quaestio utrum potestas cohercendi demonesfieripossit per caracteres
figuras atque verborum prolationes, edited in Joseph Hansen, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwabns und der Hexenverfolgung im Mittelalter (Bonn, 1901; repr. Hildesheim,
1963), pp. 71-82. Hansen's edition is not entirely free from error, but it is not discernibly inferior to
the three manuscript copies I checked it against: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3417, fols.
43v-48v; Clm 15320, fols. 150r- 155r; and Clm 18142, fols. 330r-336r. Hansen misdates the quaestio
to 1412, following Franz, Magister Nikolaus Magni de Jawor, p. 85 n. 7 (unfortunately I repeat this
error in my Magic and Superstition in Europe, p. 127). Dorothea Walz dates the work to 1405 in
Johannes von Frankfurt, Zwolf Werke des Heidelberger Theologen und Inquisitors, ed. Dorothea Walz
et al., Editiones Heidelbergenses 29 (Heidelberg, 2000), pp. 227-30. See also n. 54 below.
13
Anonymous, Tractatus de divinacionibus, Trier, Stadtbibliothek, MS 265, fols. 164r-183r. Excerpts are given under the title De daemonibus in Hansen, Quellen, pp. 82-86.
14
Heinrich of Gorcum, Tractatus de superstitiosis quibusdatn casibus, excerpted in Hansen, Quellen,
pp. 87-88.1 have used the early printing in Heinrich of Gorcum, Tractatus de superstitiosis quibusdatn
casibus, Tractatus de celebratione festorum, Omelia beati Johannis Crisostomi de cruce et latrine
(Blaubeuren, ca. 1477), fols. lr-6v. The only manuscript copy with which I have been able to compare
this printing is dated to 1478: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 7644, fols. 78r-83v. Based
on textual similarities, it is possible that this manuscript was copied from the printing.
15
Nikolaus of Dinkelsbuhl, De preceptis Decalogi, in his De dilectione Dei et proximi, De preceptis
Decalogi, De oratione Dominica . . . (Strasbourg, 1516), fols. 22v-49r. I have checked this printing
against two manuscripts: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3024, fols. 91r-133r, and Clm
3417, fols. 179r-225v. On dating see Alois Madre, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbuhl Leben und Schriften:
Ein Beitrag zur theologischen Literaturgeschichte, Beitrage zur Geschichte des Philosophic und Theologie des Mittelalters 40/4 (Miinster, 1965), p. 171. An edition of a German version of the sermons is
given in Karin Baumann, Aberglaube fur Laien: Zur Problematik und Uberlieferung spdtmittelalterlicher Superstitionenkritik, Quellen und Forschungen zur europaischen Ethnologie 6, 2 vols.
(Wurzburg, 1989), 2:503-680.
636
hannes Nider, likewise dealt with superstitious spells and charms in his treatise on
the Decalogue.16 Sometime in the 1430s or 1440s the Leipzig theologian Johannes
of Wunschelburg wrote his treatise De superstitionibus.17 In 1452 the Erfurt Carthusian Jakob of Paradise dealt with superstition in his work on the power of
demons.18 Also around the middle of the century Denis the Carthusian wrote
Contra vitia superstitionum,19 and the Zurich canon Felix Hemmerlin, trained in
law, wrote several brief tracts on spells, charms, blessings, and exorcisms.20 Later
still, most likely in the third quarter of the century, Martin of Aries, a canon of
Pamplona, wrote yet another treatise entitled simply De superstitionibus.1^
By that time, authorities' concerns about superstition were coming to be subsumed (though never entirely) in the new obsession with diabolical witchcraft that
16
Johannes Nider, Preceptorium divine legis (Milan, 1489). For dating see Michael D. Bailey, Battling Demons: Witchcraft, Heresy, and Reform in the Late Middle Ages (University Park, Pa., 2003),
p. 153. On Nider generally, see Bailey, Battling Demons, and Werner Tschacher, Der Formicarius des
Johannes Nider von 1437/38: Studien zu den Anfdngen der europdischen Hexenverfolgungen im
Spdtmittelalter (Aachen, 2000).
17
Johannes of Wunschelburg, De superstitionibus, Wroclaw, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wroclawiu,
239 (I F 212), fols. 228r-258v; compared with Wroclaw, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka we Wroclawiu, 6098
(Mil. II 46), fols. 418r-445r; and Dresden, Sachsische Landesbibliothek-Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek, Cod. P.104, fols. lr-38v. A very brief excerpt, based on the Dresden manuscript, is given
in Hansen, Quellen, p. 104, along with a discussion of dating.
18
Jakob of Paradise, De potestate demonum, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 18378, fols.
245r-272r; compared with Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 9105, fols. 167r-211r; Berlin,
Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Lat. Qu. 919, fols. lr-30r; Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Theol. Fol. 668, fols.
298r-320r; and Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 2 Cod. 338, fols. 177r-198v. For dating see
Dieter Mertens, lacobus Carthusiensis: Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Werke des Kartdusers Jakob
von Paradies (1381-1465), Veroffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte 50, Studien
zur Germania Sacra 13 (Gottingen, 1976), p. 40. Most recently on Jakob see Krzysztof Bracha, "Die
Kritik des Aberglaubens, der Irrtumer und MiGbrauche im Kult bei Jacobus Cartusiensis," in Biicher,
Bibliotheken und Schriftkultur der Kartduser: Festgabe zum 65. Geburtstag von Edward Potkowski,
ed. Sonke Lorenz, Contubernium: Tiibinger Beitrage zur Universitats- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte 59
(Stuttgart, 2002), pp. 151-63.
" Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum, in his Contra Alchoranum et sectam Machometicam libri quinque, De instituendo hello adversus Turcas, et De generali celebrando concilio,
Contra vitia superstitionum (Cologne, 1533), pp. 598-628. On Denis see Dirk Wassermann, Dionysius
der Kartduser: Einfuhrung in Werk und Gedankenwelt, Analecta Cartusiana 133 (Salzburg, 1996).
20
Felix Hemmerlin, De benedictionibus aure cum sacramento faciendis, in his Marie oblectationis
opuscula et tractatus (Strasbourg, ca. 1497), fols. 100r-103r; Tractatus de exorcismis, ibid., fols.
103v-106r; Alius tractatus exorcismorum seu adiurationum, ibid., fols. 106r-110v; De credulitate
demonibus adhihenda, ibid., fols. l l l r - 1 1 5 v . On these works see Balthasar Reber, Felix Hemmerlin
von Zurich, neu nach den Quellen bearbeitet (Zurich, 1846), dating at p. 336. Also on dating see
Catherine Chene, Juger les vers: Exorcismes et proces d'animaux dans le diocese de Lausanne (XVeXVIe s.), Cahiers Lausannois d'Histoire Medievale 14 (Lausanne, 1995), pp. 24-25.
21
Martin of Aries, Tractatus de superstitionibus contra maleficia seu sortilegia quae hodie vigent in
orbe terrarum (Rome, 1559). Dating of the original composition is imprecise. Hansen, Quellen, p.
308, assumed a date ca. 1515, just prior to what he thought was the first printing in 1517 (in fact, it
was 1510). Henry Charles Lea, Materials toward a History of Witchcraft, ed. Arthur C. Howland, 3
vols. (Philadelphia, 1939), 1:297, suggests a date in the "third quarter of the fifteenth century" based
on content. Similarly Julio Caro Baroja, The World of the Witches, trans. O. N. V. Glendinning (Chicago, 1964), p. 145, suggests a date shortly after 1466. Fabian Alejandro Campagne, Homo Catholicus, homo superstitiosus: El discurso antisupersticioso en la Espana de los siglos XV a XVIII (Buenos
Aires, 2002), p. 90, places it in the "last decades of the fifteenth century."
637
developed in the course of the fifteenth century, for which these slightly earlier
and then contemporary critics of superstition are often seen as precursors.22 Martin of Aries, for example, demonstrates great concern over witchcraft, and he uses
the label maleficium as often as he does superstitio. Heavily reliant on the earlier
author Johannes Nider, Martin draws as much from Nider's Formicarius, a seminal treatise on witchcraft, as from the more general discussion of magic and
superstition in Nider's Decalogue commentary. Still, Martin remains more a "superstition" than a "witchcraft" author because, even when discussing maleficium,
he remains focused on the improper or misunderstood nature of particular magical
rites rather than recounting gruesome stories of demonic sabbaths or other extravagant aspects of diabolism that authorities increasingly associated with witchcraft. I do not intend here to focus at length on the complex relationship between
superstition and witchcraft discourse in the fifteenth century. The clear existence
of that relationship, however, is relevant to my larger point.
Rising anxiety on the part of clerical authorities and an increased drive to scrutinize and control common beliefs and practices, growing fear of the devil and
demonic operations in the world, the first sparks of witch-hunting: these seem
very much the hallmarks of crisis in late-medieval religious culture, evidence of
forms of thought declining into senility.23 But was that really the case? The image
of the decrepit late Middle Ages painted so evocatively by Johan Huizinga (and
in less resplendent colors by others) remains powerful, despite numerous scholars'
efforts to subvert it.24 It also seems readily apparent for an age bracketed by plague
and schism on one end and religious reformation on the other. Yet while fifteenthcentury authors certainly knew the crises their world had weathered, they had no
conception of the tumults to come. Here I want to examine criticism of superstition in the early fifteenth century on its own terms, to see whether it indeed provides evidence of some crisis.
Since superstition was such a long-standing issue among Christian authorities,
reaching back to the very earliest days of the church, we must first examine the
long tradition of Christian discourse on superstition and how fifteenth-century
writers related to it. While basic rhetoric about superstition could appear stable
and even self-perpetuating, authors always deployed that rhetoric with an eye
toward contemporary contexts. Fifteenth-century treatises presented superstition
as a growing problem, a conviction that would seem to be grounded in the
church's increasing pastoral and catechetical efforts among the laity in this period.
Yet authorities did not regard superstition, even at this greater level of intensity,
as a fundamentally new threat or crisis. Next we will explore the issues and anx-
22
Tschacher, Der Formicarius, pp. 2 6 9 - 9 1 ; Edward Peters, "The Medieval Church and State on
Superstition, Magic and Witchcraft: From Augustine to the Sixteenth Century," in Witchcraft and
Magic in Europe: The Middle Ages, ed. Bengt Ankarloo and Stuart Clark (Philadelphia, 2002), pp.
173-245, at pp. 228-29.
2
' Johan Huizinga, The Autumn of the Middle Ages, trans. Rodney J. Payton and Ulrich Mammitzsch
(Chicago, 1996), pp. 286-87, mentions rising fear of witchcraft as one of the indicators of latemedieval decline.
24
A number of these works will be mentioned at the end of this article; see especially nn. 154, 156,
157, and 166.
638
ieties at the heart of fifteenth-century concerns. Conditioned by the Scholastic

theology and natural philosophy of preceding centuries, authors had to consider
the potential demonic, divine, and natural operations that might be implicated in
certain rites. Their fear that common people would not understand the important
distinctions they drew between those operations masked the fact that they themselves often came to different conclusions on particular points. Their concerns,
therefore, give evidence of an intellectual structure beginning to strain under the
pressure of its own complexities but which, importantly, is not yet seen to be
exhausted or breaking down. While authorities might disagree on some details,
their faith in their basic understanding of the world was not shaken. If their system
of thought was in crisis, they did not perceive it. Finally we must step back from
the sources and examine the context of broader intellectual and religious developments in the fifteenth century, in order to see whether, regardless of authorities'
own perceptions, their criticisms of superstition emerged within, or are indicative
of, some more generalized crisis in this era. Here I will show, by way of conclusion,
how the issue of superstition might better fit, and perhaps slightly modify, the
periodization of an "Old Europe" enduring, despite dynamic changes, down to
the eighteenth century, rather than that of a "late" medieval period declining
toward its end around 1500.
SUPERSTITIONS OLD AND NEW
Superstition was not a new concept in the fifteenth century. The idea, and the
term, had originated in antiquity, generally pertaining to excessive or improper
devotional or divinatory practices.25 As Christianity gained ascendance in the late
Roman world, Christian writers declared that all pagan rites, insofar as they were
directed toward Christian demons only masquerading as pagan deities, were improper, misinformed, and hence superstitious.26 In the early fifth century, Augustine included "consultation and pacts with demons" in his influential list of superstitious practices.27 Two centuries later, Isidore of Seville returned somewhat
to Roman usages, citing Lucretius and Cicero while defining superstitio as excessive or "superfluous" religious observances. Yet he also emphasized the inevitable
involvement of demons ("evil angels") in the magical arts.28 Later Christian writers reproduced the definitions and the descriptions of superstition presented by
those early authorities, creating to some degree a self-perpetuating rhetoric of
25
See Dale B. Martin, Inventing Superstition: From the Hippocratics to the Christians (Cambridge,
Mass., 2004), though more focused on Greek deisidaimonia than Latin superstitio.
26
Harmening, Superstitio, pp. 33-42. See also Jean-Claude Schmitt, "Les 'superstitions,'" in Histoire de la France religieuse, 1: Des dieux de la Gaule a la papaute d'Avignon, ed. Jacques Le Goff
(Paris, 1988), pp. 417-549, at pp. 425-28.
27
De doctrina Christiana 2.20, CCSL 32:54: "Superstitiosum est, quicquid institutum est ab hominibus ad facienda et colenda idola pertinens uel ad colendam sicut deum creaturam partemue ullam
creaturae uel ad consultationes et pacta quaedam significationum cum daemonibus placita atque foederata. . . ." See Linsenmann, Die Magie, pp. 50-52.
28
Isidore, Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, ed. W. M. Lindsay, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1911; repr.
Oxford, 1971), 8.3.6-7, 8.9.31, and 10.244.
639
superstition across the early Middle Ages.29 So powerful was this literary tradition
that considerable doubt hangs over the degree to which sources discussing superstition in the seventh, eighth, or ninth centuries describe contemporary practices.30
Yet authorities' discourse on superstition, whatever enduring elements it contained, surely also reflected some aspects of real practice, as well as authorities'
own often subtle reworkings of inherited tradition.31 These tendencies continued
to be manifest in later periods.
As good Scholastics, the authors of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries who
dealt with superstition were committed to the authority of the great names of
the past. One of the few scholars to examine in depth even a portion of the
sources focusing on superstition in this period, Karin Baumann, has concluded
that fourteenth- and fifteenth-century church authorities regarded superstition as
an essentially "a-historical phenomenon" that had been fully described already
by patristic and early-medieval authors.32 Thus they followed those sources whenever possible, drawing on early Christian and even Old Testament accounts of
pagan superstition for much of their rhetoric.33 Of course, a relatively stable rhetoric of criticism can nevertheless mask important changes in the use of terms and
nuances of meaning. These men wrote in and for their own era, and Baumann
correctly concludes that, however heavily the weight of past authority may have
lain on fourteenth- andfifteenth-centurywriters, they also reflected contemporary
practices to a considerable degree in their works.34 The issue, then, is how to
understand their use of earlier authority and the new concerns with which they
enlivened old debates.
There is no doubt that, especially at first glance, tracts and treatises on superstition produced in the fifteenth century seem homages to past opinion. Thomas
Aquinas was a towering authority to whom all later authors adhered, especially
for basic definitions.35 They also drew heavily on another leading thirteenth29
Harmening, Superstitio, pp. 49-75, notes with special reference the influence of the early-sixthcentury author Caesarius of Aries.
30
The strongest argument against widespread, persistent paganism in the early-medieval period is
provided by Yitzhak Hen, Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul, A.D. 481 -751, Cultures, Beliefs,
and Traditons 1 (Leiden, 1995), pp. 154-206. Ian N. Wood, "Pagan Religions and Superstitions East
of the Rhine from the Fifth to the Ninth Century," in After Empire: Towards an Ethnology of Europe's
Barbarians, ed. G. Ausenda, Studies in Historical Archaeoethnology 1 (Woodbridge, Eng., 1995), pp.
253-68, shows how difficult it is to access authentic northern European paganism (and hence superstition) from Christian sources.
31
Bernadette Filotas, Pagan Survivals, Superstitions and Popular Cultures in Early Medieval Pastoral
Literature, Studies and Texts 151 (Toronto, 2005), esp. pp. 45-46.
32
Baumann, Aberglaube (above, n. 15), 1:274.
"Ibid., 1:260 and 278.
34
Ibid., 1:483-84.
35
Every fifteenth-century author I have consulted relied heavily on Aquinas: Denis the Carthusian,
Jean Gerson (specifically in his Trilogium astrologiae theologizatae, in Gerson, CEuvres completes,
10:90-109, and his Contra superstitionem sculpturae leonis, in CEuvres completes, 10:131-34), Heinrich of Gorcum, Felix Hemmerlin (his De benedictionibus and De credulitate demonibus adhibenda),
Johannes of Frankfurt, Johannes of Wiinschelburg, Martin of Aries, and Nikolaus of Jauer (his De
superstitionibus and also in his official Refutatio of the errors of the Augustinian canon Werner of
Friedberg in early 1405: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4721, fols. 199r-202r; checked
against Clm 3041, fols. 183v-188r). The attribution of the Refutatio to Nikolaus of Jauer is suggested
640
century figure, William of Auvergne, particularly regarding questions of demonic

power and the extent of demonic involvement in superstitious practices.36 So
strong was William's influence, in fact, that when Denis the Carthusian cited in
his Contra vitia superstitionum "a certain master in his tract De superstitionibus,
which for the most part he drew from Lord William of Paris's book De fide et
legibus,"37 he might have been referring to one of two different works by that title
produced in the early fifteenth century, one by the Leipzig professor Johannes of
Wiinschelburg, the other an anonymous treatise De superstitionibus that exists in
at least four copies in the Bavarian State Library in Munich, both of which are
patterned heavily on William's work.38
Beyond thirteenth-century Scholastics, and in many cases via those authors,
authorities writing on superstition in thefifteenthcentury also drew on the older
patristic and early-medieval literature that had established Christianity's basic understanding of the issue. Augustine appears as frequently as Aquinas in fifteenthcentury texts. In fact, as concern over superstition mounted in this period, an
intriguing manuscript shows how some clerics turned very directly to the literature
of the past. The codex in question dates from thefifteenthcentury and originally
belonged to the Augustinian Hermits in Munich. Toward the end of a manuscript
that consists mainly of sermons of Franciscus Mayronis (1288-1328), a Franciscan theologian active in Paris, are a few folios dedicated to superstition. The
library catalog labels this anonymous work simply as Tractatus de superstitionibus, magia, sortilegiis, etc.39 In fact, it is a collection of excerpts from a number
in Franz, Magister Nikolaus Magni dejawor, p. 154, and confirmed by Adolar Zumkeller, Manuskripte
von Werkender Autoren des Augustiner-Eremitenordens in mitteleuropdischen Bibliotheken, Cassiciacum 20 (Wiirzburg, 1966), p. 396.
36
Referenced in Denis the Carthusian, Gerson (his De erroribus circa artetn magicam and Trilogium
astrologiae theologizatae), Jakob of Paradise, Johannes of Frankfurt, Johannes of Wiinschelburg, Martin of Aries, and Nikolaus of Jauer (De superstitionibus and Refutatio). On William see still Noel
Valois, Guillaume d'Auvergne, eveque de Paris (1228-1249): Sa vie et ses ouvrages (Paris, 1880), esp.
pp. 302-24 on astrology and superstition; Thorndike, Magic and Experimental Science, 2:338-71;
now also Thomas B. de Mayo, The Demonology of William of Auvergne: By Fire and Sword (Lewiston,
N.Y., 2007).
37
"Magister quidam in Tractatu suo de superstitionibus, quem pro magna parte ex libro domini
Guilielmi Parrhisiensis de fide et legibus collegit": Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum,
p. 610.
38
Anonymous, Tractatus de superstitionibus, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4707, fols.
lr-70v; Clm 4727, fols. lr-78r; Clm 18257, fols. 5r-52v; and Clm 26923, fols. lr-67r. The treatise
clearly comes from German-speaking lands, as the author includes a vernacular German charm to be
recited under a new moon (Clm 4727, fol. 49r), and it must have been written in the first half of the
fifteenth century. As a terminus post quem, the author cites Heinrich of Langenstein (d. 1397, Clm
4727, fol. 42r). As a terminus ante quem, probably the earliest of the Munich copies, Clm 26923, was
likely copied in 1450. The copying of De superstitionibus is not dated in that codex, but the next
work, following immediately after De superstitionibus, written in the same hand, and very likely copied
in sequence, is a Tractatus de latria et dulia (Clm 26923, fols. 67v-96v), the explicit of which indicates
that it was copied in that year. Much of the treatise is explicitly based on William's distinction of ten
forms of superstitious idolatry. See Clm 4727, fol. 17r; and William of Auvergne, De legibus 23, in
idem, Opera omnia (Venice, 1591), p. 65. On Johannes of Wiinschelburg's reliance on William see
Dietrich Kurze, "Johannes von Wiinschelburg," in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, 2nd ed., ed. Kurt Ruh, 4 (Berlin, 1982), p. 820.
39
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 8345, fols. 294v-297r.
641
of early sources. The (presumably) Augustinian scribe drew primarily on the

namesake of his order, in particular quoting the essential passage from Augustine's
De doctrina Christiana in which the bishop of Hippo defined superstition but also
quoting from Augustine's De divinatione daemonum, the addendum to De divinatione daemonum that Augustine included in his Retractationes, and a letter
from Augustine to Publicola.40 Also included were Isidore of Seville's definitions
of superstition from his Etymologiae and his long section devoted to magia.4i The
most "modern" work quoted was the ninth-century canon Episcopi (which medieval authors attributed to the fourth-century Council of Ancyra), discussing the
"superstition" of women who believed that they flew at night with the goddess
Diana.42
This little tract is hardly an intellectual tour de force. Not only does it consist
almost entirely of quotations, but the scribe managed to bungle a number of them
in minor ways (or he worked from faulty copies). To his eternal shame as an
Augustinian, he mislabeled Augustine's fundamental definition of superstition in
De doctrina Christiana 2.20 as found "libro primo" of the work. 43 He was also
not especially well informed about his topic. He clearly knew no Greek and did
not understand the Greek root of "necromancy," or divination by means of the
dead.44 Also, the collection of excerpts is incomplete. It has no prologue, introductory opening, or even title. It begins in medias res with a citation from Augustine (the incipit, such as it is, is simply: "Item libro primo de doctrina Christiana
. ..") and breaks off at the end of a page in the middle of a sentence.45 Yet for all
its imperfect and unfinished character, it shows that a cleric in the fifteenth century
had grown interested enough in superstition to begin assembling a handbook of
important early sources on the topic, probably as a reference work for others
seeking basic definitions or writing on the topic themselves.
40
For De doctrina Christiana see n. 27 above. Passages from De divinatione daemonum 3.7, 5.9,
and 6.10 are found in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 41, ed. Iosephus Zycha (Vienna,
1900), pp. 603, 607, and 610. The passage from the Retractationes is in CCSL 57, p. 114. The letter
to Publicola is in CCSL 31, pp. 203-8.
41
Isidore, Etymologiae 8.3.6-7, 10.244, and 8.9.1-13. The scribe does not include the entire passages but excerpts several long selections. Not all are clearly attributed, and it is possible the scribe
took some from intermediary works quoting Isidore.
42
See Hansen, Quellen, pp. 38-39.
43
Clm 8345, fol. 294v.
44
Clm 8345, fol. 297r, quoting from Isidore: "Ex nigromantici sunt quorum precantacionibus videntur resuscitari mortui diuinare et ad interrogate respondere, nigro in grece mortus, mancio diuinatio
nuncupantur." In fact, Isidore has: "Necromantii sunt, quorum praecantationibus videntur resuscitati
mortui divinare, et ad interrogata respondere. NEKpoc, [necros] enim Graece mortuus, uavTEi'a [mantia]
divinatio nuncupatur" (Etymologiae 8.9.11). The scribe has conflated necromantia with its medieval
near cognate nigromantia. See Richard Kieckhefer, Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer's Manual of the
Fifteenth Century (University Park, Pa., 1998), pp. 4 and 19 n. 4. This error was fairly standard for
writers in the fifteenth century.
45
Clm 8345, fol. 297r: "Hiis ergo portentis per demonum fallaciam illuditur curiositas humana
quid imprudanter appetunt scientie quod . . ." Fol. 297v is blank, as are fols. 300r-302v, as if the
work was meant to be continued. There are no fols. 298 or 299, which, presumably blank, may have
been torn out of the codex at some point, though there is no obvious sign of this, or the folios could
simply have been misnumbered. This is clearly an incomplete rather than fragmentary copy, as the
spaces for a large capital at the beginning of each major quotation have been left blank.
642
Reliant on past authority, the fifteenth century did not develop any new definition or dramatically new understanding of superstition. As Baumann notes, authors in this period considered the essential nature of superstition to be the same
as that confronted by the early church fathers. Significantly different, however,
were the level and the nature of interest the topic now attracted. In antiquity,
while superstition had been a major issue, in many ways essential to Christianity's
own definition of itself, it had never been an overriding focus of Christian writing.46 Discussions of superstition were typically found as elements within other,
more expansive works: Augustine's De doctrina Christiana, Caesarius of Aries's
wide-ranging sermons, or Isidore of Seville's universal Etymologiae.47 The same
is true of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. During this period the church became increasingly involved in the quotidian religious practices of the laity through
mechanisms as diverse as parish clergy, sacramental confession, and inquisition.
Yet when learned authorities addressed superstition, they tended to deal with the
issue as a theological abstraction or in relation to the suspected errors of other
learned elites, such as the magical rites of clerical necromancers.48 Concern over
superstition had not yet peaked or reached its broadest extent. A score of tracts
and treatises spread out over thefirsthalf of thefifteenthcentury do not necessarily
mark concern over superstition as a defining characteristic of that period either,
but they do show that for the first time a number of authors chose to write exclusively about this topic. Moreover, the issue figured prominently in one very characteristic genre of this age, being discussed as a form of idolatry in treatises on
the Decalogue.49 Decalogue commentaries were a primarily pastoral genre, and
they reflect the growing concern of ecclesiastical authorities regarding superstition
in lay belief and instruction.
Along these catechetical lines, and also very much in the spirit of the times,
fifteenth-century authors addressed the issue of superstition less as an abstract
theological point and more as a practical problem to be confronted and corrected.50 Even broad, theoretical works were frequently motivated by particular
concerns. Possibly the most widely circulated fifteenth-century treatise on super-
46
Filotas, Pagan Survivals, p. 359, notes in five centuries of pastoral literature only about two
thousand short passages dealing directly with superstition.
47
For Augustine and Isidore see above, nn. 27, 40, and 41. Caesarius of Aries's sermones are found
in CCSL 103 and 104. For a study see Guillaume Konda, Le discernement et la malice des pratiques
superstitieuses d'apres les sermons de S. Cesaire d'Arles (Rome, 1970). Filotas, Pagan Survivals, p. 1,
argues that Caesarius "set the tone" for all subsequent early-medieval treatment of paganism and
superstition.
48
Schmitt, "Superstitions" (above, n. 26), esp. pp. 497-510.
49
German-language examples of these works form the basis of Baumann's study in Aberglaube. In
terms of the breadth of this material in the fifteenth century, she notes that Munich alone has over
250 German vernacular manuscripts that deal with the Decalogue, mostly from the period 1420-90
(Baumann, Aberglaube, 1:127 and 128-97, describes many of these manuscripts). On the significance
of the Ten Commandments for this period see John Bossy, "Moral Arithmetic: Seven Sins into Ten
Commandments," in Conscience and Casuistry in Early Modern Europe, ed. Edmund Leites (Cambridge, Eng., 1988), pp. 214-34.
50
Daniel Hobbins, "The Schoolman as Public Intellectual: Jean Gerson and the Late Medieval
Tract," American Historical Review 108 (2003), 1308-37.
643
stition was that of Nikolaus of Jauer.51 This large work dealt with numerous
aspects of superstition, yet it seems to have been motivated by a specific case of
error, not by some uninformed layperson but by a theologically trained cleric.
Implications for lay instruction, however, are evident throughout the case. In early
1405, the year Nikolaus wrote his treatise, the Heidelberg theological faculty had
questioned the Augustinian friar Werner of Friedberg about various superstitious
positions he supposedly held, some of which clearly derived from or reflected
common practices.52 Werner was censured not only for using a vernacular healing
charm himself but also for failing to reprimand any laity who confessed using
similar rites. As always, at issue were both the nature of the practice and the need
to police proper understanding.
Nikolaus wrote the official refutation of Werner's errors, and this exercise may
have inspired his much larger treatise, in which he addressed issues of practice
and understanding in more general ways.53 Of course, such a connection is not
necessary. Superstition was also being discussed in other contexts at Heidelberg
at this time. Even as Werner's questioning was under way, another member of the
theological faculty, Johannes of Frankfurt, conducted an academic dispute on
whether certain words, figures, or characters could command and control demons,
a central issue in authorities' categorizations of acts as superstition.54 One could
just as easily assume that Nikolaus of Jauer was already working on the topic of
superstition and for that reason was chosen to refute Werner of Friedberg's positions. Either way, however, the relationship between Nikolaus of Jauer's treatise
and the case of Werner of Friedberg shows the close connection between fifteenthcentury writing on superstition and particular events.
51
Franz, Magister Nikolaus Magni de Jawor, p. 152. Franz's list of 58 known manuscript copies of
De superstitionibus (pp. 255-64) is expanded to 119 in Bracha, Teolog, diabei i zabobony, pp. 21621; in conversation, Dr. Bracha has informed me that his tally of De superstitionibus manuscripts is
now close to 150. If one accepts the general "factor of 15" that Uwe Neddermeyer argues should be
used to estimate original fifteenth-century manuscript production totals from known survivals, then
De superstitionibus might have originally circulated in over 2,000 manuscript copies (Von der Handschrift zum gedruckten Buck: Schriftlichkeit und Leseinteresse im Mittelalter und in der friihen Neuzeit.
Quantitative und qualitative Aspekte, Buchwissenschaftliche Beitrage aus dem Deutschen Bucharchiv
Munchen 61, 2 vols. [Wiesbaden, 1998], 1:81).
52
On Werner's case see Franz, Magister Nikolaus Magni de Jawor, pp. 150-54, and, more recently,
Robert E. Lerner, "Werner di Friedberg intrappolato dalla legge," in La parola all'accusato, ed. JeanClaude Maire Vigueur and Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (Palermo, 1991), pp. 268-81. Nikolaus does
not mention Werner's case directly in his De superstitionibus, but nor does he mention the case much
in his official Refutatio of Werner's positions (above, n. 35). The Refutatio is mostly a collection of
authorities disproving the positions Werner had been made to renounce in his Revocatio of February
11, 1405 (Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4721, fol. 198r-v).
53
Franz, Nikolaus Magni de Jawor, pp. 154-55.
54
Johannes of Frankfurt, Questio. The work survives in manuscripts variously dated to 1405-6 and
1425-26. Franz, Magister Nikolaus Magni de Jawor, p. 85 n. 7, misread the explicit of the copy in
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbiblothek, Clm 15320, fol. 155r ("Hec questio fuit in disputacione de quolibet heydelberge determinata Anno domini 1406 nona die januarii per magistrum Iohannem de Frankfordia sacre theologie bad.") as "1412." He was then followed by Hansen, Quellen, p. 71, in his
edition of this work. Dorothea Walz (above, n. 12) has examined this misreading and further argues
that 1406 must be a scribal error for 1405, thereby placing the disputation in the same month (January
1405) as Werner's trial.
644
Other authors also reflect this sense of immediate concern. Heinrich of Gorcum,
writing around 1425, announced at the outset of his treatise that he intended to
respond to "cases [of superstition] presented to me" and proceeded to address
nine examples.55 Martin of Aries, writing much later in the century, composed his
general work on superstition in response to a single questionable event. In times
of drought the local clergy of a village near Pamplona would perform a ceremony
that involved saying masses over an image of St. Peter, baptizing it, and holding
a procession. All this was intended to bring rain. Martin wrote in response to "a
certain archdeacon" who asked whether this was a legitimate rite or a condemned
superstition.56 Denis the Carthusian wrote probably around the middle of the
century and, while he mentioned no specific example, was likely inspired by similar
cases. He stated that his short work should serve as a guide for local pastors so
that they could prevent their flocks (and doubtless themselves as well) from falling
into superstitious error.57 Rather different in social context, but still a clear example of a treatise written for a specific purpose, was the German courtier Johannes Hartlieb's 1456 tract, Buch aller verbotenen Kiinste, des Aberglaubens und
der Zauberei. Written at the request of Duke Albrecht II of Bavaria, Hartlieb's
work deals more with learned courtly magic than common spells and charms,
though it makes some mention of common magic and witchcraft.58
However timeless superstition could seem in its essential nature, many authors
clearly felt it was becoming more pressing and problematic in their time. Jean
Gerson explicitly lamented at the beginning of De erroribus circa artem magicam
that superstitious observances were growing ever more prevalent.59 Denis the Carthusian exhibits a similar attitude. His Contra vitia superstitionum drew extensively on William of Auvergne's De legibus.60 Yet Denis recognized that the particular needs of his age called for a more readily usable summary of that sprawling
thirteenth-century work, one that could be used to combat growing superstition
among the laity. His stated intent was to expound on his topic "briefly, plainly,
and simply" as a guide to low-ranking parish clergy who would be in regular
contact with common people and would need to police their practices.61 In perhaps
the most evocative description of the perceived degradation of present days, Nikolaus of Jauer compared the strong predilection of contemporary Christians for
superstition to that of the ancient Jews for succumbing to idolatry and worshiping
false gods.62
55
Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fol. lr.

Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fols. lr-2r.
57
D e n i s t h e C a r t h u s i a n , Contra vitia superstitionum,
p . 5 9 9 : " . . . p r a e s e r t i m q u a m laici q u i d a m ex
ignorantia multipliciter hie offendunt; qui quamuis idola non adorant, tamen in modo colendi deum
grauiter errant. Pertinetque ad pastores vt illos corripiant, corrigant et informant."
58
Johannes Hartlieb, Das Buch aller verbotenen Kiinste, des Aberglaubens und der Zauberei, ed.
and trans. Falk Eisermann and Eckhard Graf, Esoterik des Abendlandes 4 (Ahlerstedt, Ger., 1989).
59
Gerson, De erroribus, p. 77: "observationes nostra, pro nefas, tempestate nimis et nimis invalescentes."
60
Probably directly, but also explicitly through another fifteenth-century treatise modeled on William's work, as above, n. 37.
61
Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum, p. 599: "breue, plane atque simpliciter."
62
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 44r.
56
645
Despite the clear sense that superstition had grown particularly threatening,
only one of these authors made any specific argument for why this should be so:
Martin of Aries noted the presence of many "new Christians" in Iberia, that is,
converted Jews and Muslims, and attributed the spread of superstition to them.63
Moreover, while all authors cited ancient authorities and clearly perceived superstition as in some sense perennial, only one writer, Heinrich of Gorcum, asserted
specifically that some superstitions, such as belief in the so-called Egyptian days
as a time of particular misfortune, were the unchanged manifestations of ancient
paganism.64 These men had a sense of history and certainly recognized that superstitions changed over time, even as they held that essential errors remained
constant. A new vitality infused this old issue in the fifteenth century, but not in
ways that astonished authorities or called for extended explanation. The church
had confronted superstition in the past, and now was simply another moment
when it needed to do so again. What remains to be asked is whether in this particular confrontation, in the concerns it generated and the responses it invoked,
the authorities who wrote on superstition perceived any kind of crisis.
AUTHORITIES' ANXIETIES
The concerns clustering around the issue of superstition were, for authorities,
as much about ensuring proper understanding of the various forces that infused
the created world as about policing proper use of powerful rites. In many cases
improper understanding is what rendered a practice inappropriate. Any involvement with demonic power was of course reprehensibleor rather, almost any, for
the faithful could sometimes compel the devil by the power of Christ. Prayer,
blessings, and items consecrated by the church all exerted power, yet that power
had to be correctly understood lest a legitimate rite become corrupt and superstitious. In addition, various natural, though often occult, forces suffused the world,
presenting a legitimate resource on which the faithful might draw but also a means
by which demons could lead the unwary astray.65 As authorities articulated their
anxieties about all potential areas of superstitious error, they were, in fact, mapping a topography of both spiritual and natural power. The general contours of
that map were widely agreed upon, but many of the more exact details were
troubling, and often authors disagreed among themselves on precisely where important boundary lines should be drawn.
Authorities were in full agreement about the main danger entailed in superstition: the likely involvement of demons. Heinrich of Gorcum warned at the outset
of his short tract of the terrible sin into which people would fall if they sought the
"aid or counsel" of demons.66 This was hardly a startling position, as it was
63
Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fol. 33r.

Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fol. 5r.
65
1 also address considerations of natural and demonic power in relation to superstition, with different points of emphasis, in "The Disenchantment of Magic: Spells, Charms, and Superstition in Early
European Witchcraft Literature," American Historical Review 111 (2006), 383-404; and in "Witchcraft, Superstition, and Astrology in the Late Middle Ages" (forthcoming).
66
64
646
grounded firmly in authorities stretching from Augustine to Aquinas.67 Other

fifteenth-century authors followed suit, declaring the threat of idolatry to be the
greatest danger inherent in superstition.68 That the idolatrous worship of demons
was sinful could hardly be doubted, although in good Scholastic fashion many
authors set about proving it at some length.69 Most common spells and charms,
however, did not contain explicit elements of demonic invocation or worship. In
these cases, authors (again following established authority) assumed a tacit pact
binding the human spell caster to a demon.70 Yet since tacit pacts, by definition,
left no overt evidence of demonic involvement, authorities felt compelled to prove
that demons were, or at least could be, involved in the operations that spells or
other superstitious rites were supposed to bring about.
Fifteenth-century authors writing on superstition devoted a great deal of their
energy to demonstrating the possibility and range of demonic power. Nikolaus of
Jauer dedicated more than the first third of his long work to this topic.71 Jean
Gerson's De erroribus circa artem magicam was much shorter but with an even
greater proportionclose to half the original material in the tractdevoted to
questions of demonic existence and power.72 Jakob of Paradise framed his entire
discussion of spells and superstitions in terms of demonic abilities.73 Even with
rites that supposedly involved the explicit invocation of demons, authorities felt
the need to argue at some length that these were improper and superstitious.74 In
fact, the sources on which these men drew did create grounds for debate. The
67
Heinrich announced (ibid.) that he intended to draw mainly on Augustine, City of God 21, and
Aquinas, Summa theologiae 2.2.95-97.
68
Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fols. 7v-8v; Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 49v;
Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum, p. 600; Jakob of Paradise, De potestate demonum,
fol. 267v.
" T h e longest treatment is Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fols. 7r-v and 8v-16v, in general
outline following Aquinas, Summa theologiae 2.2.94.2-3, 3:666-69, though obviously far exceeding
it in detail.
70
Augustine had defined all superstition as entailing "pacta . . . cum demonibus" in De doctrina
Christiana 2.20, p. 54, while Isidore had refered to magical arts functioning "ex quadam pestifera
societate hominum et angelorum malorum" in Etymologiae 8.9.31. Aquinas stated that all magicians
operated "per pactum initum cum daemone" in Summa theologiae 1.110.4, 1:825; he repeated Augustine's association of superstition and demonic pacts and noted that these pacts might be "vel tacita,
vel expressa" in Summa theologiae 2.2.92.2, 3:661. See Harmening, Superstitio, pp. 309-17. Also in
the thirteenth century Albertus Magnus and William of Auvergne discussed tacit and implicit pacts:
see Jeffrey Burton Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, N.Y., 1972), p. 144; and Tschacher,
Der Formicarius (above, n. 16), pp. 250-52.
71
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fols. 35r-46r (out of a total of twenty-nine folios in this
copy).
72
Gerson, De erroribus, pp. 78-81 (out of fourteen total pages in this edition, of which the final
five pages consist largely of the 1398 condemnation of magic and superstition by the Paris theological
faculty).
73
At the outset of De potestate demonum (fol. 245r) he noted that all "sortilegia, incantaciones,
veneficia, sompnia, diuinaciones, beneficiones, prestigia, auruspicia, ars notoria, futurorum prenosticaciones, coniuraciones, dierum obseruaciones, punctuaciones per artem nigromancie, piromancie,
geomancie, et plura talia," when not mere figments of human imagination, derive from "illusiones
demonum."
74
Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fols. 55v-59r, discussing explicitly demonic divination; Denis
the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum, pp. 613-14, discussing the same.
647
Bible, for example, repeatedly sanctioned the practice of exorcism, declaring that
all followers of Christ had the power to cast out demons in his name.75 This could
easily be construed as entailing power to control and manipulate demons more
generally. Thomas Aquinas had also stressed that there were two modes by which
humans could interact with demons, either imploring and supplicating them for
aid or commanding and compelling them by the power of Christ. He had judged,
andfifteenth-centuryauthors were forced to acknowledge, that the second method
was entirely legitimate.76
Such an admission was deeply troublesome because it opened a window for
human interaction with demons that might not be conclusively shut again. Most
authorities were quick to stress that, aside from casting out demons and driving
them away, no one could ever hope to control these powerful and deceitful creatures by any kind of rite or ritual.77 Even in cases of simple exorcism, authorities
argued vigorously that demons were compelled only by divine power, not by any
virtue inherent in the words or rites employed. Yet incorrect words or any improvisations could lead inadvertently to demonic supplication. Thus Nikolaus of
Jauer advised people to use only psalms and official prayers, above all the Lord's
Prayer, to shield themselves from demons.78 Certainly, they should not risk any
more complicated interaction with demonic forces.
Of course, not just divine and demonic power operated in the world. Earthly
materials possessed natural properties, and astral bodies radiated natural energies.
Some of these natural powers were obvious, but others were occult and could only
be exploited by those with special knowledge. At least since the thirteenth century
a category of natural magic had existed in Christian thought, which authorities
deemed more or less permissible. William of Auvergne had written on this topic,
as had Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albertus Magnus.79 Exploiting natural
properties was in no way illicit or superstitious, and so in their consideration of
superstition, authorities needed to take into account this added complication:
what rites and seeming spells might in fact draw only on natural forces? Nikolaus
of Jauer wrote that people were perfectly free to use herbs and other natural items
to cure illness, heal injuries, and for other beneficial purposes.80 Martin of Aries
agreed, though because it was critical that illicit forces not creep in and corrupt
75
Matthew 10.1, Matthew 10.8, Mark 3.15, Mark 16.17, Luke 9.1.
Aquinas, Sumtna theologiae 2.2.90.2, 3:654; Johannes Nider, Preceptorium divine legis l.ll.kk;
Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fol. 60r; Jakob of Paradise, De potestate demonum, fols. 259v-260r.
77
Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fol. 39v; Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fols. 42v-43r;
Nikolaus's Refutatio of the errors of Werner of Friedberg, fol. 201 v; Johannes of Frankfurt, Quaestio,
passim.
78
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 55v.
79
Richard Kieckhefer, Magic in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, Eng., 1989), pp. 12-14; Francesco
Santi, "Guglielmo d'Auvergne e l'ordine dei Domenicani tra filosofia naturale e tradizione magica,"
in Autour de Guillaume d'Auvergne (f 1249), ed. Franco Morenzoni and Jean-Yves Tilliette, Bibliotheque d'Histoire Culturelle du Moyen Age 2 (Turnhout, 2005), pp. 137-53; Jean-Patrice Boudet,
Entre science et "nigromance": Astrologie, divination et magie dans I'Occident medieval (XHe-XVe
siecle), Histoire Ancienne et Medievale 83 (Paris, 2006), pp. 128 and 133.
80
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 56r-v: "De veritate autem herbarum non est dubium
et ita eciam licitum sit eis uti ordine nature ad sanitates et ad alia immutanda."
76
648
an otherwise natural remedy, he cautioned that people should not recite any incantations as they gathered herbs or other natural ingredients.81
Authorities entered into particularly complex discussions concerning whether
natural divination might be possible. In principle, all authorities agreed that careful observation of natural signs could be used to predict some future occurrences,
but again opportunities for falling into error were plentiful. Heinrich of Gorcum,
for example, noted that birds were especially sensitive to natural conditions in the
air, and so their behavior could often be used to predict coming storms and other
meteorological events without recourse to any kind of illicit, superstitious augury.82 Denis the Carthusian agreed but warned that even if people observing a
flight of birds avoided any illicit behavior themselves, still demons might affect
the behavior of the birds in order to lead these people into error.83
The most powerful natural forces permeating the world, and the most worrisome, were those emanating from the sun, moon, and stars. Authorities heaped
attention on superstitious uses of astral forces to perform divination and other
magical operations. A number of Jean Gerson's tracts dealt specifically with such
astral superstition.84 Authorities' main concern was that astral magicians might,
in their rituals and ceremonies, address and propitiate stars as sentient intelligences. Thomas Aquinas had condemned this sort of astral rite, for, as he argued,
the stars had no life themselves and the only intelligent entities that magicians
might address through such rites were demons.8S Similarly William of Auvergne
had strongly opposed the "idolatry" of anthropomorphizing astral bodies and
honoring or invoking them as if they were sentient beings.86
Another serious concern was that astrologers might claim to predict events over
which the stars exerted no natural influence, above all events that derived from
human actions, for astral force could not be allowed to impinge on human free
will. Yet authorities admitted that astrologers could legitimately prognosticate
anything that might be caused, directly or indirectly, by astral influence.87 This
opened up a fairly wide field of action. Most directly, the power of the stars
affected the atmosphere and so could influence the weather. But the stars also
affected other natural processes, including some within the human body itself.
Many authorities were quick to note that physicians legitimately took into account
the effects of the stars on the human body when diagnosing and treating disease.88
Because of their natural effect on the body, the stars could even create urges and
81
Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fols. 7v-8r.

83
Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum, pp. 618-19.
84
Jean Gerson, Trilogium astrologiae theologizatae, Contra superstitionem sculpturae leonis, and
De respectu coelestium siderum (the last in CEuvres completes, 10:109-16).
85
Aquinas, Sutnma contra gentiles 3.104; Thomas von Aquin, Summe gegen die Heiden, 3/2, ed.
and trans. Karl Allgaier, Texte zur Forschung 18 (Darmstadt, 1996), pp. 116-22.
8S
William of Auvergne, De legibus 25, in Opera omnia, pp. 75-79. Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fols. 22r-23v, rehearsed his arguments in the fifteenth century.
87
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fols. 40r and 50r; Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia
superstitionum, pp. 614-15; Jakob of Paradise, De potestate demonum, fol. 264v.
88
Hartlieb, Buch (above, n. 58), p. 88. Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 50r, explicitly
compares physicians and (nonsuperstitious) astrologers in their use of natural signs to predict future
conditions.
82
649
"inclinations," by which many weak-willed people were fully governed, and so,
in fact, the stars could be used at least to guess at some aspects of human behavior.89 This very inexact sort of foreknowledge could never rise to the level of
certain prediction because, of course, free will might always overrule the carnal
impulses generated by astral forces, yet such considerations added layers of complication to authorities' judgments about astrological divination.90 Precisely because of these complexities, many authorities cautioned against any reliance on
astral rites because demons could so easily involve themselves in these murky
matters.91
The potential threat of demons operating in the natural world could be countered by the invocation of divine power. Martin of Aries had noted that people
should not mutter any incantations while gathering medicinal herbs, for fear that
this would invite demons into an otherwise permissible activity, but he encouraged
the use of the Creed or the Lord's Prayer.92 Yet even the invocation of divine power
could be a cause for concern and confusion. Authorities stressed that official
prayers and blessings, just like unofficial spells and charms, carried no power in
and of themselves. If prayer and blessing were effective, this was only the result
of divine power acting in response, not to a specific verbal formula, but rather to
the faith that those words (ideally) conveyed.93 To believe or to behave otherwise
would be to fall into superstitious error. Only the sacraments functioned automatically, and again not because of any power that rested inherently in their formulas, but because of a "pact" consecrated between God and the church that
divine power would always respond to sacramental invocation.94
A similar threat of superstition clung to relics of saints, to images of the Virgin
Mary, Christ, the cross, and even the Eucharist. Such items were worthy of reverence for what they represented (or in the case of the consecrated host, church
89
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 53v; Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum, p. 615; Jakob of Paradise, De potestate demonum, fol. 264v.
90
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 53r; Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fol. 12r.
Best on the complexities of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century astrology is Laura Ackerman Smoller,
History, Prophecy, and the Stars: The Christian Astrology of Pierre d'Ailly, 1350-1420 (Princeton,
N.J., 1994). Boudet, Entre science et "nigromance," covers astrology in detail and places it in the
context of many other forms of magic.
91
Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fol. 65r; Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fols. 50v, 53v,
and 54v; Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum, p. 615; Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fols. 16r-v and 57r-v. At fol. 57r-v Martin is citing from Gerson, Trilogium astrologiae theologizatae, p. 105.
92
Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fol. 8r; likewise Johannes Nider, Preceptorium divine legis
1.9.e. Both authorities drew from Aquinas, Summa theologiae 2.2.96.4, 3:689.
93
Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fols. 35v-36r; Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fols. 57v
and 58v; also his Refutatio, fol. 200v; Johannes of Frankfurt, Quaestio, pp. 79-80; Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fol. 2r; Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum,
pp. 605-6.
94
Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fol. 2v; Denis the Carthusian, Contra
vitia superstitionum, p. 605; and with the notion of pact Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol.
58r; Johannes of Frankfurt, Quaestio, p. 79; Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fols. 32v and 42r,
drawing on the notion of divine pacts in William of Auvergne, De legibus 27, p. 87.
650
authorities asserted, for what they in fact were).95 Yet they, too, had no inherent
"virtue"; rather they served as foci through which divine power often (or always)
chose to operate.96 These were subtle distinctions, and authorities were deeply
concerned that they would be lost on common people, or even some clerics, who
would come to revere these items in themselves and not for what they represented.97 Among the errors of which the Augustinian friar Werner of Friedberg
stood accused in 1405, for example, was that he believed a cross in the possession
of the Augustinians in Landau carried unique virtues beyond those that any cross
might possess, a charge he strongly denied.98 Had he believed this, however, he
would have fallen into the same error as both clergy and laity in the village near
Pamplona condemned by Martin of Aries, who believed that they could augment
some power inherent in a statue of St. Peter by baptizing it and then employing
it in a ceremony to bring rain.99 Similarly, other authorities criticized people who
believed that a particular image of the Virgin Mary might be "holier and more
efficacious" than any other.100
None of this was to say that faithful Christians should not use prayers or blessings or call upon the saints in times of need. The very first "case" that Heinrich
of Gorcum discussed in his De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus concerned the
performance of rites dedicated to St. Agatha in order to protect against fire. Heinrich concluded that these rites were entirely licit and commendable so long as
people understood that it was divine power, and not any virtue inherent in the
rite itself, that would provide the sought-for protection.101 Werner of Friedberg,
who was a lector in theology, though still accused of falling into error by advocating and employing superstitious rites, noted that if all blessings were illicit, the
church could not advocate the blessing of ashes on Ash Wednesday, palm fronds
on Palm Sunday, or eggs or meat at Easter.102 He declared that whenever people
asked his advice about particular blessings or charms, he only forbade the practices
if they seemed manifestly to call on the power of the devil.103
95
Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fols. 48r-50r, beginning with the question of a superstitious
misuse of an image of St. Peter, has the fullest treatment of this issue. Anonymous, De latria et dulia,
which follows Anonymous, De superstitionibus, in Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 26923,
fols. 67v-96v, and was copied in the same hand and likely at the same time, includes extensive discussions of the manner in which images of Christ, Mary, the saints, and the cross are to be venerated
and worshiped (fols. 82v-92r).
96
Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fol. 15r-v. The Eucharist was again an exception in that it
always conveyed divine power but only in the sense of bestowing grace for which it had been consecrated. Other operationshealing, warding off demons, etc.were no more inherent to it than to
any other blessed or sacral item.
97
Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fol. 28r.
' 8 Werner, Revocatio, fol. 198r.
99
Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, opens his treatise with this case (as above, n. 56), and
discusses its error fully at fols. 47v-54r.
100
Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fol. 28r: "una ymagine beate virginis certis aliis esse sanctiorem
yel efficaciorem ad effectus miraculosos."
101
Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fols. lv-2r.
102
Werner, Revocatio, fol. 198r. See also his slightly earlier Responsio, in Lerner, "Werner di Friedberg" (above, n. 52), p. 280.
103
Werner, Revocatio, fol. 198r: "in welhem segen der tuifel nit angeruft ward die han ich nit gestraft
noch verboten"; Responsio, p. 280: "et in quibus invocationibus sub vocabulo maligni spiritus non
651
That spells, blessings, charms, and other rites not call upon the devil would
certainly have been, for medieval authorities, a sine qua non of their acceptability,
and Werner was rather liberal in making this his only condition. Most other authorities were more skeptical and imposed far more detailed restrictions on what
practices might be permissible. Many drew up lists of specific criteria that, if met,
would guarantee the licitness of given practices. These criteria could range in
number between four and eight, and might vary slightly in their content (and more
greatly in their expression), but all were based on conditions that Thomas Aquinas
had set forth in his Summa theologiae.104 Essential to these conditions was that
the rite should contain nothing that explicitly invoked demons or the devil. There
should be no unknown words or names and no "vain" symbols or written characters. Of course, no one should expect any effects to arise from the rite itself,
from the "method of speaking or writing" it, but only from divine power, if God
chose to respond. The point was also frequently made that rites should not aim
to obtain any effects that one could not reasonably expect God to support (therefore, no evil or unjust effects). Moreover, rites should not "tempt" God by seeking
an instant and automatic response.105
Authorities basically agreed on most of the theoretical criteria for judging whether
practices were legitimate or superstitious. The faithful could expel demons in
Christ's name, but any attempt to command or coerce demons beyond simple
exorcism would almost certainly fail. Natural forces could be exploited legitimately for any purpose to which they were naturally suited, though their potential
effects were carefully circumscribed, and the danger that demons would somehow
involve themselves in otherwise licit processes was ever present. Prayers and blessings could and should be used, though always with the clear understanding that
they were ineffectual in and of themselves and that any results they might seem
to produce actually derived solely from divine power. In each of these areas lay
nuances and complexities that authorities feared would be beyond most people's
comprehension and so would afford the opportunity for serious error. In this they
were surely correct, for the complex conditions they had devised for parsing legitimate from illegitimate practices, definitive in the abstract, proved very confusing in practice, so much so that authorities themselves typically disagreed on the
nature of any number of specific rites.
In 1405, for example, the Heidelberg theological faculty had clearly condemned
a healing spell that Werner of Friedberg had advocated and even used himself,
which involved reciting in the German vernacular "Christ was born, Christ was
continebantur, non redarguerit neque confitentem ad desistendum a talibus non prohibuerit recitans
quodammodo eas fore licitas et permissas."
104
Aquinas, Summa theologiae 2.2.96.4, 3:689.
105
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 59r; Nikolaus of Dinkelsbiihl, De preceptis Decalogi,
fol. 30v; Johannes Nider, Preceptorium divine legis 1.1 l.gg; also Nider, De morali lepra (Cologne, ca.
1467-72), fol. 65r-v; Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fols. 26v-27r (citing Nider as well as
Aquinas); Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum, pp. 602-3; Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fols. 37r-38r; Jakob of Paradise, De potestate demonum, Clm 9105, fols. 190v-191v (this
section is not in the earlier Munich manuscript, Clm 18378, from which I primarily cite, but in this
and certain other cases Clm 9105 seems superior). Aquinas had discussed the sin of "tempting" God
mainly in Summa theologiae 2.2.97.1, 3:691.
652
lost, Christ was found again; may he bless these wounds, in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit."106 Several decades later, however, the Zurich canon Felix
Hemmerlin judged the spell to be entirely legitimate and Heidelberg's condemnation faulty.107 Nor was this the only case in which Hemmerlin went against
other authorities. He also approved of a spell to heal ailing cows that he knew
other authorities had opposed.108 The theologians of Heidelberg had similarly
condemned the belief that writing the names of the Three Kings and carrying them
as a charm would ward off attacks of epilepsy.109 A few decades later in Cologne,
however, Heinrich of Gorcum explicitly supported this practice, so long as people
did it in reverence to God and not in the belief that the written words themselves
carried power.110 Some authorities were inclined to allow the clearly widespread
practice of carrying apotropaic charms worn around the neck.111 Others were
more suspicious, however, and Nikolaus of Jauer argued in the strongest terms
that while the custom was perhaps not inherently illicit, nevertheless it was highly
questionable, or at least presented the possibility of serious error, and so should
be avoided.112
The limits of legitimate exorcism were especially difficult to determine. Both
Martin of Aries and Felix Hemmerlin maintained that it was licit to use holy names
to "exorcise" pests from fields, and in this case Hemmerlin was in agreement with
106
"Christus wart geboren Christus wart verloren Christus wart widerfunden deer gesegen dise
wunden In namen des vatters und des sunes und des hailigen geistes": Werner, Revocatio, fol. 198r.
See also Werner, Responsio, p. 280, in which the last clause is rendered in Latin.
107
Hemmerlin, Alius tractatus exorcismorum seu adiurationum, fol. 106v: "Et ecce audi rem proprie
gestam quod de anno domini MCCCCV, die Sexta, mensis Februarii, quidam peritus frater Wernherus,
lector ordinis Augustinensis, in aula episcopi Spirensis, in opido Heydelbergensis, reuocauit octo articulos tanquam erroneos, per ipsum predicatos, inter quos quartus de certis exorcismis erat talis, in
forma vulgari patenter alemanico conceptus. . . . Et consequenter dixit formam unius exorcismi qui
talis fuit de vulneribus curandis: Christus ward geboren, Christus ward verloren, Christus ward gefunden, der gesegnet dise wunden, in namen des vatters, etc." Analysis of this spell occupies most of
this tract. Hemmerlin states (fol. 107v) that Werner was engaged in a good work, with good intention,
and employed correct words. His final conclusion concerning Werner's charm, "quod tales et sui similes
adiurationes seu exorcismi aut imprecationis pronunciatio licite et conuenienter admittitur, et per prelatos ecclesiarum non prohibentur," is on fol. llOv.
108
Hemmerlin, Tractatus de exorcismis, focuses on the vernacular spell "Ob das sy das Maria magt
oder iungfrow eyn kindt Jesum gebar, so kumme disem thier das blatt ab, in namen des vatters, etc."
(fol. 103v). He mentions other authorities who condemn the spell, although he does not indicate who
they are (fol. 105r).
109
Werner, Revocatio, fol. 198r: "Item der funfte wer die namen der trei kinigen by im trett das dem
sant Valentinus plage nit angange."
110
Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fol. 4r: "In aliquibus cedulis scribere
nomina trium regum et collo suspendere ob reuerenciam dei et ipsorum regum et eorum fiducia sperare
auxilium non est illicitum. Credere autem ipsis verbis scriptis inesse aliquam virtutem sanandi quasi
libere infirmitates est vanum et superstitiosum."
111
Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fol. 2r; Denis the Carthusian, Contra
vitia superstitionum, pp. 602-3. On the neck as the "default position" for amulets see Don C. Skemer,
Binding Words: Textual Amulets in the Middle Ages (University Park, Pa., 2006), p. 135.
112
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 59r-v. Nikolaus of Dinkelsbiihl, De preceptis Decalogi, was also strongly critical (fols. 28v-29r and 30v), before grudgingly admitting that such practices are sometime licit (fol. 30v).
653
the Heidelberg theological faculty, or at least so he asserted.113 Nikolaus of Jauer

deemed that the use of crosses to ward off storms from fields was superstitious
because this was not a purpose for which the church specifically intended blessed
crosses to be used.114 Heinrich of Gorcum condemned the practice as well, but
mainly on the grounds that people typically believed the cross itself possessed
inherent power, thereby implicitly leaving the door open for the licit use of such
rites so long as proper understanding was maintained.115 Previously in his tract
Heinrich had argued that people could legitimately take consecrated or blessed
items from churches and employ them for nonsacral purposes, so long as they did
so with reverence and right belief.116 Denis the Carthusian argued against this,
maintaining that it was inherently irreverent to use consecrated items for purposes
other than those for which they were officially intended.117 He then raised an
exception to his own point, however. Noting that holy water was officially blessed
to drive away demons, he surmised that insofar as demons might be the cause of
foul weather, it was licit to use holy water to protect fields at least from demonically generated storms.118 The ever-permissive Felix Hemmerlin, discussing no less
a sacral item than the Eucharist, felt it was entirely legitimate to use consecrated
hosts to protect fields on all occasions.119
With the possible exception of Hemmerlin, all early-fifteenth-century critics of
superstition were deeply concerned about the potential for error that these practices held, which, if unchecked, could become a terrible corruption within Christian society. Heinrich of Gorcum, for example, noted that many people fell into
superstition only out of ignorance and so might be gently corrected; but if they
persisted in their error, then authorities should apply "harsher medicine."120 Likewise Johannes of Frankfurt noted that officials should either expel or "more
harshly correct" superstitious diviners or sorcerers.121 Yet how were authorities to
correct error reliably when there was so much confusion, in practice, about which
rites might be permissible and which not? Typically, authors argued that officials
should err on the side of caution. Denis the Carthusian asserted that even if rites
were not inherently superstitious, authorities could legitimately condemn them
113
Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fol. 28r; Hemmerlin, De exorcismis, fol. 104r, and again
with a statement about Heidelberg approving such practices in Alius tractatus exorcismorum, fols.
108v-109v. This portion of the tract has been edited and translated into French in Chene, Juger les
vers (above, n. 20), pp. 126-33.
1
Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fol. 57r.
' Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fol. 4v.
;
Ibid., fols. 2v-3r.
17
Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstittonum, pp. 610-11.
!
Ibid., p. 611.
' Hemmerlin, De benedictionibus, fols. 100r-103r.
120
Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fol. 6r: "Necesse erit vti acriori medicina vt morbus curetur et non inualescat."
121
Johannes of Frankfurt, Quaestio, pp. 75-76: "Sequitur tercio, quod huiusmodi vani divinatores
vel sortilege, carminatrices aut carminatores debent puniri et quandoque expelli aut alias acriter corrigi."
654
because of the danger that they might lead people into illicit practices.122 Johannes
Nider commented that many rites that were entirely appropriate when employed
by educated clerics should be forbidden to the common laity because of their lack
of understanding.123 Noting the danger of unknown names transforming prayers
or blessings into demonic invocations, Martin of Aries remarked wryly that those
who knew no Latin should certainly not attempt spells or blessings involving
fragments of Greek.124
Yet there was no clear consensus. In 1419 Pierre d'Ailly wrote to his former
pupil Jean Gerson, not about common spells and charms, but about the equally
complicated matter of learned astrology. Gerson had just written a work critical
of astrology, while d'Ailly was a proponent of the art.125 As was so typically the
case when authorities confronted issues of superstition in thefifteenthcentury, the
cardinal and the chancellor of the University of Paris actually agreed on most of
the basic, theoretical distinctions between permissible astrology and its superstitious variants. Gerson had deemed astrology a "noble and admirable science" and
had even cited d'Ailly several times in his tract.126 The question was how to differentiate appropriate from erroneous astrology in practice. D'Ailly noted sardonically that just as there were certainly superstitious astrologers who went too
far in their predictions, venturing into areas where the stars had no natural effect,
so, too, there were "superstitious theologians" who went too far in their condemnations of these practices.127
Superstition was a complex issue that generated considerable confusion and a
multiplicity of responses among the authorities whom it concerned. Yet as d'Ailly
and Gerson illustrate, differing conclusions did not necessarily lead to fundamental conflict or any obvious crisis. As one survey has noted, the fifteenth-century
church generally exhibited "striking . . . forbearance" toward differing thought
and expression, not so much in theory, where lines could be drawn quite sharply
between the acceptable and the condemned, but rather in actual practice.128 Authorities' anxieties about superstition and their responses to them fit this model
perfectly. Despite the confusion that could surround the issue, no fifteenth-century
authority ever called for a new or dramatically different approach to superstition.
Rather, they all seem to have felt that traditional applications of church power,
122
Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum, p. 607: "lam dictum est, quod quamuis benedictiones et adiurationes praefata in seipsis non sint superstitiosae neque illicitae, si fiant sicut prohibitum est, nihilominus sunt vitandae ac prohibendae propter annexa pericula, quia in eis frequenter
aliqua superstitiosa miscentur."
123
Nider, Preceptorium divine legis l.ll.hh.
124
Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fol. 34r.
125
Gerson's Trilogium astrologiae theologizatae. The fundamental study of d'Ailly's astrology is
Smolier, History, Prophecy, and the Stars (above, n. 90).
126
Gerson, Trilogium astrologiae theologizatae, pp. 90, 92, 95, and 102.
127
D'Ailly in a letter to Gerson ca. November 1419, in Gerson, CEuvres completes, 2:219: "Nam
sicut illos dico superstitiosos astronomos qui contra theologicam veritatem astrologiam ultra id quod
potest nimis extollunt, sic et illos superstitiosos theologos qui contra philosophicam rationem astronomiae potestatem nimis deprimunt vel penitus tollunt."
128
John Van Engen, "The Church in the Fifteenth Century," in Handbook of European History,
1400-1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation, ed. Thomas A Brady, Jr., Heiko A.
Oberman, and James D. Tracy, 2 vols. (Leiden, 1994), 1:305-30, at p. 309.
655
both gently to correct and more harshly to chastise, could control the problem
sufficiently. Moreover, that power should be guided, they all maintained, by traditional Christian understandings of superstition stretching back for centuries.
Perhaps the most "extreme" of these authors was Felix Hemmerlin, in his open
assertions that most other authorities had come to faulty conclusions on this issue.129 But his own conclusion was that those other authors were too severe and
that most common spells, blessings, charms, and other rites were harmless or even
positive and could easily be tolerated.130 If there was a crisis brewing in his day,
he does not seem to have been its harbinger.
THE CONTEXT OF CONCERN
Fifteenth-century authorities viewed the perceived prevalence of superstition in

their day as a serious concern, but that concern does not appear to have risen to
the level of a crisis, either in the sense of clearly demonstrating the exhaustion and
imminent collapse of old forms of thought and practice or in the sense of demanding the development of new and innovative responses. Yet might we see this
flowering of concern over superstition as an element of crisis, even if they did not?
There are good reasons to argue that a true crisis is impossible without at least
some contemporary recognition of the event, that some level of "crisis mentality"
must grip the contemporary imagination.131 But perhaps with historical hindsight
we may recognize, where contemporaries did not, that the growing anxiety about
superstition in the earlyfifteenthcentury was an aspect of other developments that
they, or we, might regard as crises.132
As I have argued elsewhere, one context in which concern over superstition
clearly developed in this period was among new universities being founded across
Europe and especially in the lands of the German empire.133 Influenced by Gerson,
working in the old intellectual center of Paris, members of the new theological
faculties that dotted the central European landscape increasingly wrote shorter,
more focused works that addressed practical problems rather than sweeping abstractions.134 They also tended to address matters of everyday piety and pastoral
129
Hemmerlin, De exorcismis, fol. 105r.

Hemmerlin, Alius tractatus exorcismorum, esp. fols. 109v-110r.
131
Ferdinand Seibt, "Zu einem neuen Begriff von der 'Krise des Spatmittelalters,'" in Europa 1400:
Die Krise des Spatmittelalters, ed. Ferdinand Seibt and Winfried Eberhard (Stuttgart, 1984), pp. 7 23, at pp. 12-13; Frantisek Graus, "Epochenbewufitsein im Spatmittelalter und Probleme der Periodisierung," in Epochenschwelle und Epochenbewusstsein, ed. Reinhart Herzog and Reinhart Koselleck,
Poetik und Hermeneutik 10 (Munich, 1987), pp. 153-66, at p. 154; Frantisek Graus, Pest-GeisslerJudenmorde: Das 14. Jahrhundert als Krisenzeit, Veroffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte 86 (Gottingen, 1987), p. 530; Klaus Schreiner, "'Diversitas temporum'Zeiterfahrung und
Epochengliederung im spaten Mittelalter," in Epochenschwelle, pp. 381-428, at p. 384.
132
Frantisek Graus, "EpochenbewuStsein-Epochenillusion," in Epochenschwelle, pp. 531-33,
notes how later historical perceptions of a period may differ from contemporary ones; see also Graus,
Pest-Geissler-Judenmorde, p. 530.
133
Bailey, "Concern over Superstition" (above, n. 7).
134
Hobbins, "Schoolman" (above, n. 50). Of the works dealt with here, Heinrich of Gorcum, De
superstitiosis quibusdam casibus; Denis the Carthusian, Contra vitia superstitionum; and the several
works of Felix Hemmerlin, as well as all the works by Gerson himself on this topic, clearly qualify as
"tracts." Longer works such as Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, and Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, still conform to Hobbins's idea of practical intent.
130
656
care, exemplifying the new trend toward Frommigkeitstheologie in this period,

again influenced by Gerson but dominant in German lands.135 Each of these trends
favored renewed attention to the old issue of potential superstition in common
beliefs and practices. Particularly from the leading central European universities
at Prague and Vienna, networks of theologians interested in superstition radiated
out to other, even newer institutions across the empire.136
The newer universities founded in the later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries were often the creations of regional princes and were expected to serve the
needs of secular government.137 Theological faculties were therefore supposed to
play a role in promoting right belief and sound piety. Policing potential superstition was one aspect of this duty. The case of Werner of Friedberg is exemplary.
His advocacy of common spells and charms for healing and other simple needs
not only threatened to undermine proper religion in the region of Landau but also
challenged the authority of local clergy who were forbidding certain spells that
Werner approved.138 As Werner had theological training, he was able to justify
himself under initial questioning at the local bishop's court with some skill.139 Now,
however, theologians from the region's new university at Heidelberg, founded only
twenty years earlier, could be brought in to refute his positions.
Some scholars have seen this multiplication of intellectual centers in the later
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as itself constituting a crisis, contributing to
intellectual discord in western Europe. Certainly it was a negative development
from the perspective of the traditional intellectual center in Paris, which (insofar
135
Berndt Hamm, "Frommigkeit als Gegenstand theologiegeschichtlicher Forschung: Methodischhistorische Uberlegungen am Beispiel von Spatmittelalter und Reformation," Zeitschrift fur Theologie
und Kirche 74 (1977), 464-97. On connecting this new theological approach to superstition see Baumann, Aberglaube (above, n. 15), 1:201-2; also Krzysztof Bracha, "Kritik an den Glaubens- und
Verhaltensformen und an der Aberglaubenpraxis im kirchlichen reformatorischen Schrifttum des
Spatmittelalters," in Christianity in East Central Europe: Late Middle Ages, ed. Pawel Kras and Wojciech Polak (Lublin, 1999), pp. 271-82, at pp. 272-73; Krzysztof Bracha, "Der Einflui? der neuen
Frommigkeit auf die spatmittelalterliche Kritik am Aberglauben im Reformschrifttum Mitteleuropas,"
in Die "Neue Frommigkeit" in Europa in Spatmittelalter, ed. Marek Derwich and Martial Staub,
Veroffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts fur Geschichte 205 (Gottingen, 2004), pp. 225-48, at
pp. 227-29.
IM p o r p r a g U e s e e Frantisek Smahel, "Starker als der Glaube: Magie, Aberglaube und Zauber in der
Epoche des Hussitismus," Bohemia: Zeitschrift fur Geschichte und Kultur des bohmischen Lander/A
journal of History and Civilization in East Central Europe 32 (1991), 316-37, at pp. 328-29. Baumann, Aberglaube, 1:101-2, notes the importance of the "Vienna school" in catechetical writing,
which frequently dwelled on superstition.
137
A. B. Cobban, The Medieval Universities: Their Development and Organization (London, 1975),
pp. 118-19; Jacques Verger, Les universites au moyen age, Collection SUP, L'Historien, 14 (Paris,
1973), pp. 140-43. Particularly for the case of Vienna see Paul Uiblein, "Die osterreichischen Landesfiirsten und die Wiener Universita't im Mittelalter," Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterreichische
Geschichtsforschung 72 (1964), 382-408, esp. pp. 382-83. On the service of the university to the
court, particularly in matters of potential superstition, see Michael H. Shank, "Academic Consulting
in Fifteenth-Century Vienna: The Case of Astrology," in Texts and Contexts in Ancient and Medieval
Science: Studies on the Occasion of John E. Murdoch's Seventieth Birthday, ed. Edith Sylla and Michael
McVaugh, Brill's Studies in Intellectual History 78 (Leiden, 1997), pp. 245-70.
138
Werner, Revocatio, fol. 198r; Werner, Responsio, p. 280.
139
Mainly in his Responsio; see Lerner, "Werner di Friedberg," passim.
657
140
as it noticed at all) now saw its authority challenged. But such gloomy perceptions hardly applied to the new foundations themselves, brimming with energy
and possibilities. The mood in Vienna in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth
centuries, for example, has been described by one scholar as "buoyant." 141 These
new centers of intellectual activity promoted a diversity of opinion, perhaps reflected, to some extent, in the confusion and disagreements that surrounded the
issue of superstition.142 But this diversity did not lead to any evident crisis. Again
it must be stressed that despite the difficulties superstition presented, authorities
appear to have remained confident in the church's ability to address the problem
in traditional ways.
The persistence of superstition into the fifteenth century might be taken as a
sign of failure on the part of the church in its ancient efforts to Christianize the
peoples of Europe.143 In their appropriations of late-antique Christian criticism of
superstition, fifteenth-century authors sometimes did refer to superstitious practices as remnants of paganism.144 Yet they also recognized the vast distance between their own and ancient days,145 and they realized that the practices they
condemned were essentially Christian. Indeed, this was the main reason for their
concern. As one author stated explicitly, the superstitious spells and charms they
criticized were far worse than the erroneous rites of the Jews precisely because
such spells were corruptions of Christian practice.146 Certainly superstition entailed "popular" practices and "folkloric" beliefs that could be quite different
from the religious culture of clerical elites.147 But more often people of all social
statuses based the spells, blessings, and charms they employed on elements of the
liturgy or other official rites.148
Thus in their efforts to correct and improve Christian practice, critics of superstition were among the many voices calling for religious reform in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.149 Calls for reform are often taken to imply a crisis,
140
Michael H. Shank, "Unless You Believe, You Shall Not Understand": Logic, University, and
Society in Late Medieval Vienna (Princeton, N.J., 1988), p. 5; Verger, Les universites, p. 112.
141
Shank, Unless You Believe, p. 6. For intellectual optimism more generally in this period see
William J. Courtenay, "Huizinga's Heirs: Interpreting the Late Middle Ages," in "Herbst des Mittelalters"? Fragen zur Bewertung des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts, ed. Jan A. Aertsen and Martin Pockave,
Miscellanea Mediaevalia: Veroffentlichungen des Thomas-Instituts der Universitat zu Koln 31 (Berlin,
2004), pp. 25-36, esp. pp. 25-26.
142
"Pluralism" is the term applied by Shank, Unless You Believe, p. 56.
143
On notions of Christianization and its discontents, the best introduction is still John Van Engen,
"The Christian Middle Ages as an Historiographical Problem," American Historical Review 91(1986),
519-52.
144
E.g., Nikolaus of Jauer, De superstitionibus, fols. 43v-44r, 45v, 48v, 60v, and 62v; Nikolaus of
Dinkelsbiihl, De preceptis Decalogi, fol. 30r.
145
Nikolaus of Dinkelsbuhl, De preceptis Decalogi, fol. 29v.
146
Anonymous, De superstitionibus, fol. 33r: "Multo amplius nepharium et huiusmodi stigmatibus
incidi et caracteribus insigniri quanto videlicet detestabilis est execratio ydolatrie quam ritus iudaicus."
147
Schmitt, "Superstitions" (above, n. 26), pp. 421-23.
148
Most powerfully shown in Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in
England, 1400-1580 (New Haven, Conn., 1992), pp. 266-98. On a "common" magical tradition not
limited to popular or elite groups see Kieckhefer, Magic (above, n. 79), pp. 56-57.
149
See Bracha, "Kritik an den Glaubens- und Verhaltensformen," esp. p. 271; Bracha, "EinfluE,"
esp. p. 244; Bracha, "Kritik des Aberglaubens" (above, n. 18), esp. pp. 151-52.
658
150
or at least a decline. Yet we must be cautious about using some generalized idea
of reformist concerns to deduce a generalized crisis in this period. In fact, many
varieties of reform developed during these years, and distinct trends should not
be casually lumped together.151 Critics of superstition belong to the trend that I
have elsewhere called "spiritual reform," and reformers of this variety sought to
improve personal piety and to correct individual belief and practice.152 As Jean
Gerson argued, the faithful should turn to God, not superstition, in times of need
and should "amend their lives."153 Notably, reformers of this sort did not seek a
technical reformatio in the sense of a return to some supposed earlier, more perfect
state of humanity or the church (unless that state should have been before the
Fall). As such, while they certainly stressed the deformations of present days, they
did not, at least in their tracts and treatises on superstition, valorize the past as
other varieties of reformist writing sometimes did, thereby generating an artificial
sense of crisis.154 This is not to imply that these men were unimpressed by the
achievements of earlier times. Gerson, for example, exhibited great admiration
for the accomplishments of thirteenth- and early-fourteenth-century thinkers in
his program for intellectual reform.155 Yet their critiques of superstition do not
fixate on any lost age of superior virtue and so do not present an image of a
contemporary society fallen into deep crisis.
The whole "crisis model" of understanding the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries has come under considerable criticism itself, as have evocative notions of the
lso
Discussion of church and imperial reform comprises the heart of Dieter Geuenich, "Das 15.
Jahrhundert'Herbst des Mittelalters' oder Beginn der Neuzeit?" in Wegmarken europdischer Zivilisation, ed. Dirk Ansorge, Dieter Geuenich, and Wilfried Loth (Gottingen, 2001), pp. 162-77, at pp.
168-75.
151
As warns Van Engen, "The Church in the Fifteenth Century," p. 307. For some varieties see Ivan
Hlavacek and Alexander Patschovsky, eds., Reform von Kirche und Reich zur Zeit der Konzilien von
Konstanz (1414-1418) und Basel (1431-1449) (Constance, 1996).
152
Bailey, Battling Demons (above, n. 16), p. 3; for reference to superstitions see ibid., pp. 130-36.
Similarly Christopher M. Bellitto, Nicolas de Clamanges: Spirituality, Personal Reform, and Pastoral
Renewal on the Eve of the Reformations (Washington, D.C., 2001), esp. pp. 2-3 and 59-60; also
Bellitto, "The Spirituality of Reform in the Late Medieval Church: The Case of Nicolas de Clamanges,"
Church History 68 (1999), 1-13.
153
". . . non superstitiosis observationibus sed piis obsecrationibus, non daemonum invocationibus
sed vitae emendatione": Gerson, De erroribus, p. 85. Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fol. 69r,
repeats the line almost exactly.
154 p e t e r Schuster, "Die Krise des Spatmittelalters: Zur Evidenz eines sozial- und wirtschaftsgeschichtlichen Paradigmas in der Geschichtsschreibung des 20. Jahrhunderts," Historische Zeitschrift 269
(1999), 19-55, at p. 44, suggests that reformers' "starke Idealisierung der Vergangenheit und Riickwartsgewandtheit" may have contributed to an artificial crisis mentality. Likewise Van Engen, "The
Church in the Fifteenth Century," p. 312, notes that reformers' "partisan accounts" often cause modern historians to perceive deep conflict where in fact the contemporary reality was one of (often
complicated) coexistence. For a good account of reformist zeal see James Mixson, "The Setting and
Resonance of John Nider's De reformatione religiosorum," in Kirchenbild und Spiritualitdt: Dominikanische Beitrdge zur Ekklesiologie und zum kirchlichen Leben im Mittelalter, ed. Thomas Priigl
and Marianne Schlosser (Paderborn, 2007), pp. 319-38.
155
Zenon Kaluza, Les querelles doctrinales a Paris: Nominalistes et realistes aux confins du XlVe
et du XVe siecles, Quodlibet 2 (Bergamo, 1988), p. 13.
659
156
era's waning, decline, or even its very "lateness." Such descriptions of this period stem at least as much from late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century ideas
of historical progression, and that era's ownfin-de-siecleconcerns, as from any
fourteenth- or fifteenth-century reality.157 This is particularly true when our focus
falls only on the fifteenth century, as even partisans of the crisis model are increasingly restricting it to the troubled 1300s.158 They also frequently argue that the
concept of crisis must be understood in terms not only of exhaustion, waning, or
collapse but also of energetic breakthroughs and progressive new developments.159
In this, they seem to approach the arguments of those opponents of the crisis
model who characterize the supposed late Middle Ages, and particularly the fifteenth century, in terms of multiplicity of forms, forces, and tendencies, incapable
of reduction to any simple synthesis.160 Confusion over how to identify and respond to superstition would fit the general paradigm offifteenth-centurydiversity
and complicated coexistence of various practices and beliefs, at least until the midto-late-1400s, when a harsh new synthesis began to emerge in the form of demonic
witchcraft. Yet even here one must be careful to note that early theories of witchcraft were far from uniform or monolithic.161 Moreover, throughout the fifteenth
century even the harshest opponents of witchcraft remained ambivalent on the
matter of simple superstitious spells and charms.162
Even the next century, with its profound religious upheavals, brought little
fundamental change to thought about superstition. The Reformation certainly
added new dimensions to the concern, with different confessions now accusing
one another of enshrining foul superstition in their theology, in addition to everintensifying efforts to correct and control common practices. Yet authoritative
156
Schuster, "Krise des Spatmittelalters"; Erich Meuthen, "Gab es ein spates Mittelalter?" in Spdtzeit: Studien zu den Problemen eines historischen Epochenbegriffs, ed. Johannes Kunisch, Historische
Forschungen 42 (Berlin, 1990), pp. 91-135; Howard Kaminsky, "From Lateness to Waning to Crisis:
The Burden of the Later Middle Ages," Journal of Early Modern History 4 (2000), 85-125. Timothy
Reuter, "Medieval: Another Tyrannous Construct," Medieval History Journal 1 (1998), 24-45, holds
that the Middle Ages as a whole are more a historical convention than a unified period, although he
does not regard the term as an unworkable convention (esp. pp. 37-38).
157
Rehearsed by Schuster, "Krise des Spatmittelalters," and Meuthen, "Gab es ein spates Mittelalter?" but most fully traced in Frantisek Graus, "Das Spatmittelalter als Krisenzeit: Ein Literaturbericht als Zwischenbalanz," Mediaevalia Bohemica 1 (1969), supplement pp. 1-75. For Huizinga see
Wessel Krul, "In the Mirror of Van Eyck: Johan Huizinga's Autumn of the Middle Ages," Journal of
Medieval and Early Modern Studies 27 (1997), 353-84, esp. pp. 369-74. Historians' usage of the
term "crisis" has also been influenced by contemporary conditions: see Randolph Starn, "Historians
and 'Crisis,'" Past and Present 52 (1971), 3-22, esp. pp. 7-10.
158
Walter Buckl, ed., Das 14. Jahrhundert: Krisenzeit (Regensburg, 1995), although Buckl himself,
in his introductory essay, warns that fourteenth-century trends did not begin sharply in 1300 or end
in 1400 ("Das 14. Jahrhundert: Eine Einfiihrung," pp. 9-17, at p. 10).
159
Buckl, "Das 14. Jahrhundert," p. 10; Seibt, "Zu einem neuen Begriff," p. 10; Geuenich, "Das
15. Jahrhundert," passim.
160
Erich Meuthen, Das 15. Jahrhundert, 4th ed., rev. Claudia Marti, Oldenbourg Grundriss der
Geschichte 9 (Munich, 2006), stated at p. 2 but argued virtually passim. Likewise Van Engen, "The
Church in the Fifteenth Century," p. 309; more broadly in John Van Engen, "Multiple Options: The
World of the Fifteenth-Century Church," Church History 77 (2008), 257-84.
161
Richard Kieckhefer, "Mythologies of Witchcraft in the Fifteenth Century," Magic, Ritual, and
Witchcraft 1 (2006), 79-108.
162
Bailey, "Disenchantment of Magic" (above, n. 65).
660
thought on superstition did not take on any particularly new character or tone,
remaining essentially grounded in medieval and early Christian conceptions even
as it reflected the changing context of its own time.163 Moreover, within the nowvarious confessions of Western Christianity, authoritative policing of the complicated "twilight zone" of common spells and charms continued much as in the
fifteenth century.164 It was not in the fifteenth or sixteenth century but rather in
the eighteenth that authorities' approaches to superstition underwent fundamental
change, as Enlightenment thinkers dramatically recast superstition as an error
against new models of scientific rationality rather than against traditional religious
doctrine.165 Instead of supporting the notion of a crisis-ridden or waning latemedieval period that came to a calamitous end around 1500, the issue of superstition instead fits more easily into the model of an Old Europe of beliefs and
mentalities that endured until the 1700s.166
"Old Europe" is typically defined as stretching from the twelfth or even eleventh
century through the eighteenth and is usually discussed in terms of political and
economic structures.167 Yet as one scholar has noted, "human mentalities have
their persistencies just as much as demographic patterns, field systems, and trade
routes do."168 Indeed, mentalities may be the most persistent of those structures.
The conceptions of superstition that underwent dramatic change in the eighteenth
century did not first emerge in the eleventh or twelfth. Authors in the fifteenth
century knew the practices they confronted were not identical to those of ancient
163
Ernst Saxer, Aberglaube, Heuchelei und Frommigkeit: Eine Untersuchung zu Calvins reformatoriscber Eigenart, Studien zur Dogmengeschichte und systematischen Theologie 28 (Zurich, 1970),
esp. pp. 15-17, notes Calvin's reliance on patristic and even Thomistic notions of superstition.
164
The phrase is from R. W. Scribner, "Ritual and Popular Religion in Catholic Germany at the
Time of the Reformation," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35 (1984), 47-77, at p. 71. His articles
also form the best introduction to this aspect of Reformation-era history: see esp. "Sorcery, Superstition, and the Witch of Urach, 1529," in Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London, 1987), pp. 257-75; "The Reformation, Popular Magic, and the 'Disenchantment of the World,'" Journal of Interdisciplinary History 23 (1992-93), 475-94, reprinted
in Scribner, Religion and Culture in Germany (1400-1800), ed. Lyndal Roper, Studies in Medieval
and Reformation Thought 81 (Leiden, 2001), pp. 346-65; and "Magic and the Formation of Protestant Popular Culture in Germany," in Religion and Culture, pp. 323-45.
165
Recognized by Harmening, Superstitio, p. 5; Pott, Aufklarung (above, n. 6), esp. p. 1.
166
Replacement of the late-medieval crisis model by the model of Old Europe is argued strongly by
Kaminsky, "From Lateness to Waning to Crisis," pp. 120-25; with specific reference to religious
history see Howard Kaminsky, "The Problematics of 'Heresy' and 'The Reformation,'" in Haresie
und vorzeitige Reformation im Spatmittelalter, ed. Frantisek Smahel, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, Kolloquien 39 (Munich, 1998), pp. 15-21. See also Meuthen, "Gab es ein spates Mittelalter?"
pp. 132-33, and Das IS. Jahrhundert, pp. 1-2. The idea of "Old Europe" (Alteuropa) is often linked
to Jakob Burckhardt, but it was traced even earlier by Richard Blankner at the 1987 Otto Brunner
Conference in Trent. See Annali dell'lstituto Storico Italo-Germanico in Trento 13 (1987), 136; cited
in the "Translators' Introduction," in Otto Brunner, "Land" and Lordship: Structures of Governance
in Medieval Austria, trans. Howard Kaminsky and James Van Horn Melton (Philadelphia, 1984), p.
lix n. 99.
167
Overview in Dietrich Gerhard, Old Europe: A Study of Continuity, 1000-1800 (New York,
1981).
168
Robert E. Lerner, The Powers of Prophecy: The Cedar of Lebanon Vision from the Mongol
Onslaught to the Dawn of the Enlightenment (Berkeley, Calif., 1983), p. 8. This book's largest argument is that a "medieval supernatural framework" did not end until the eighteenth century (p. 197).
661
days, but they understood those practices in terms that had been developed in the
tenth century, the seventh, the fifth, or even earlier.169 Rather than just an Old
Europe of six or seven hundred years, here we can see a world of traditional
Christianity enduring some fifteen centuries.170
Yet there are also more recent breaks in the history of superstition. As much as
they drew on patristic and early-medieval authorities, the authors of the fifteenth
century were also grounded in, and reacted to, theological developments in the
twelfth and above all the thirteenth centuries. The need to make traditional Christian understandings of demonic power cohere with Aristotelian philosophy, and
the problems of definition and discernment that ensued as aspects of that coherence were worked out, lies at the core of many of the practical problems of identifying and regulating superstition that authorities encountered in the fifteenth
century.171 Their engagement with and criticism of this topic came at the midpoint
(perhaps a climactic midpoint) in Old European mentalities, or in a later phase of
traditional Christian mentalities, that endured for several more centuries.172 Their
concerns provide a vital window into the dynamic religious and intellectual world
of the fifteenth century; they do not, however, represent an autumnal end phase
or crisis of a late or waning Middle Ages.
169
Most clearly indicated in the anonymous compilation of fifth- through tenth-century sources in
Clm 8345 (above, n. 39).
170
The issue of superstition may thus help to answer the question posed in Meuthen, "Gab es ein
spates Mittelalter?" p. 133: if one accepts a period of Old Europe stretching from the twelfth through
eighteenth centuries, what does one do with the earlier medieval period?
171
Walter Stephens, Demon Lovers: Witchcraft, Sex, and the Crisis of Belief (Chicago, 2002), traces
concern over witchcraft back to thirteenth-century theological developments.
172
Cf. Graus, Pest-Geissler-Judenmorde, p. 554.
Michael D. Bailey is Associate Professor of History at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
50011-1202 (e-mail: mdbailey@iastate.edu).

A Late-Medieval Crisis of Superstition?

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Late-Medieval Crisis of Superstition?

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iowa State University

Digital Repository @ Iowa State University

A Late-Medieval Crisis of Superstition?

Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/history_pubs

A Late-Medieval Crisis of Superstition?

fifteenth century, concern over superstition tended to focus on common spells,

ieties at the heart of fifteenth-century concerns. Conditioned by the Scholastic

century figure, William of Auvergne, particularly regarding questions of demonic

of early sources. The (presumably) Augustinian scribe drew primarily on the

Heinrich of Gorcum, De superstitiosis quibusdam casibus, fol. lr.

Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fol. 33r.

grounded firmly in authorities stretching from Augustine to Aquinas.67 Other

Martin of Aries, De superstitionibus, fols. 7v-8r.

the Heidelberg theological faculty, or at least so he asserted.113 Nikolaus of Jauer

Fifteenth-century authorities viewed the perceived prevalence of superstition in

Hemmerlin, De exorcismis, fol. 105r.

care, exemplifying the new trend toward Frommigkeitstheologie in this period,

You might also like